lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 12:38:46 -0500 From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com> To: Ling Ma <ling.ma.program@...il.com> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ling <ling.ml@...baba-inc.com> Subject: Re: Improve spinlock performance by moving work to one core On 11/05/2015 11:28 PM, Ling Ma wrote: > Longman > > Thanks for your suggestion. > We will look for real scenario to test, and could you please introduce > some benchmarks on spinlock ? > > Regards > Ling > > The kernel has been well optimized for most common workloads that spinlock contention is usually not a performance bottleneck. There are still corner cases where there is heavy spinlock contention. I used a spinlock loop microbenchmark like what you are doing as well as AIM7 for application level testing. Cheers, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists